Man in blue underwear shines laser at police ’copter “just to see how far it would go”

Now faces up to five years in jail, $250,000 fine.

If you are the type of person who thinks shining a laser into a police helicopter at four in the morning sounds like a good time, be warned that the FBI can and will identify you by the cut and color of your underwear.

We know this thanks to a 23-year-old Texan named Kenneth Santodomingo, who according to the FBI was in the backyard of his Dallas home at 4:08am on January 28, 2013, shining a laser pointer into the cockpit of a Dallas Police Department helicopter called "Air 1." Santodomingo allegedly scored four direct hits on the cockpit; according to the FBI agent investigating the case, "the intensity of the light obscured the vision of the pilot and impaired the pilot's ability to control the aircraft."

An example of an arrest made in 2010 due to a laser strike against a pilot.

The officers in the helicopter then used an infrared camera to track down the source of the light, and they directed police officers on the ground to a home on Lake June Road. When officers knocked on the door, Santodomingo opened it—but couldn't manage to unlock the burglar bars covering the door. He was, the FBI notes, "only wearing dark blue short style underwear." The officers had a conversation through the bars with their underwear-wearing subject, who at first denied any knowledge of what they were talking about. When the officers pointed out that the helicopter had recorded video of the incident, Santodomingo allegedly admitted that he had used a green laser to illuminate the helicopter. Why had he done it? Because he "wanted to see how far [the laser] would go."

In addition to this knowledge, Santodomingo will also learn just how far the judicial system will go in prosecuting such offenses. Previous experience tells us the answer is "all the way." He has been arrested and now faces federal charges. In preparing those charges, the FBI reviewed the footage taken by the police officers in the helicopter. As Special Agent Mark Sedwick put it in a court filing, "The video taken by the DPD helicopter showed that the individual using the laser in the backyard fit the description of Santodomingo and appeared to be wearing the same short style underwear at the time of the offense that Santodomingo was wearing when talking to officers."

Santodomingo faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Promoted Comments

I am a pilot. Someone shined a laser at me once, at night. I didn't know what it was at first, I just saw a flashing green dot in the distance. I actually thought it was a rotating beacon for an airport at first, which confused me, because I didn't expect any airport there (rotating beacons identify airports and flash green/white). The uncertainty about my position was dangerous enough. As I stared at it, expecting it to flash white, suddenly it got very bright (I assume because the guy got it aimed properly). I realized what it was and looked away - but not before I got a very persistent afterimage right in my center of vision, because I was looking right at it.

For the next few minutes, until the afterimage cleared, it was impossible to read any of the cockpit instruments directly. I had to look slightly offset so the readout was not in the afterimage. I was very disturbed because I was concerned my vision was permanently damaged. People can buy 1,500 mW lasers now for $299 (5 mW is the damage threshold at close range). Because of the afterimage and my concern, the next few minutes were very dangerous and stressful, even though it was just a casual flight in good weather. Luckily, I had a checkup and there was no permanent damage. They never found the guy, just like they never find most of the morons who do shit like this.

I was flying a small single-engine plane in good weather with just me in it in a relatively unpopulated area. These travel slow and are not that difficult to fly, and it was not critical that I be able to read any of the instruments precisely or frequently. I was able to just fly straight and level and wait for the afterimage to clear up. If this had been an airliner on approach into a large airport over a city, it would have been a major problem. If the airliner had an inoperative autopilot, this could have been the critical link that caused a massive fatal crash, by rendering both pilots temporarily incapable of hand-flying it. Re: this story, a helicopter at night is not an easy thing to fly. If the pilot had any other issues that they had to give their attention to (e.g. mechanical issues), the additional distraction of the laser could be the difference between a safe landing and a fatal crash.

This stuff is no joke. I could not give a rat's ass whether this guy "intended" any harm or not. "I'm too stupid to realize I was doing something dangerous and reckless" is not a defense. Throw the fucking book at this asshole and see how the guys in prison like his blue underpants for the next 5 years.

I am getting enraged just typing this. There is not much margin for error in aviation, at certain times anyway. This is not at all like someone driving with high beams on. When driving, you can always slam on the brakes and stop on the side of the road if you have a problem. You can't do that in an airplane. The fact that no harm was done in this case doesn't in any way lessen the severity of what the guy did. He was just lucky no one got hurt or died because of his recklessness. Why does that mean we should punish him any less severely?

I'm a pilot. I've never had this happen to me, but I know those who have, and it's a big deal. Not only can pilots lose control of aircraft because of this kind of thing (and it's even worse for helicopter pilots), but 1W+ lasers can permanently damage vision even from thousands of feet away.

Here's how freedom works: we let you buy things like hobbyist high-power lasers, and if you abuse the privilege, there are consequences. Jerks like this guy put lives at risk and also empower politicians and bureaucrats to regulate every product that has some conceivably dangerous use. Of course, our prosecutors are too busy trying to send someone to jail for thirty five years for downloading academic articles instead of people who deliberately put lives at risk.

For the love of God, people. Please figure out what the term "maximum sentence" means. It really shouldn't be hard to understand that the maximum sentence represents the maximum possible time in jail and money fined. It does NOT mean that's the standard sentence that the average person convicted of this crime will receive this sentence. In fact, it's exceptionally rare for people to receive the maximum sentence, and is almost always because there was some extenuating circumstance that caused the judge/jury to decide to max out the sentence.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting so weary of seeing stories like this on Ars, where the article mentions the max possible sentence, and the comments are filled with people screaming about how unreasonable that is, with absolutely no concept that the maximum sentence is MEANT to be high, and also meant to be very infrequently used.

I am a pilot. Someone shined a laser at me once, at night... [edited for brevity]

As a pilot, pretty much that.

As a safety of flight issue, this isn't the equivalent of 'high beams on a car' level mischief, this is much closer to "dropping bricks from an overpass into traffic on the highway" level mischief if you're looking for the requisite car analogy.

It's not an annoyance, it's not an inconvenience, it's a damn good way to seriously and permanently injure or kill people.

I have serious doubts that anyone here would even bat an eye at such potential penalties (let alone make excuses for this guy) if he'd been out there with a rifle taking pot shots at passing aircraft for 'the lulz', yet that could possibly be argued as being less dangerous than what he was doing with the laser (much harder to score a hit with the rifle, and due to range any shots that did make it would likely be almost out of energy).

If I had to make a choice, I'd probably be inclined to pick small arms fire over a laser directed at my aircraft at night. Paradoxically, it's probably less likely to get me injured or killed.

I'd like to see a citation for your comment that the maximum sentence is rarely used, because I belive it to be false. The federal sentencing guidlines are very specific and almost always followed - in fact, in many cases they are required to be followed. Only those who figure out a way to manipulate the system get shorter sentences, and that manipulation requires the cooperation of the prosecutors.

The "5 years/$250,000" is *not* the Federal Sentencing Guideline recommendation, that's the maximum sentence and fine allowed by the statute. The sentencing guideline recommendation can be anything up to and including that, based on several factors, including conduct of the crime and criminal history. The judge can then take that recommendation and adjust it based on his own assessment of mitigating circumstances, such as the age of the defendant, his statements during trial and sentencing.

edit: I just looked it up at ussc.gov, and based on my non-professional interpretation, and assuming he has no prior convictions, the guideline recommendation is 27 - 33 months, without any further adjustments, and that's for applying the "reckless" part of the guideline. Otherwise, he'd be looking at 4 - 10 months, and anything under 6 months he'd be eligible for probation.

edit2: and fine of $6,000 - $60,000 for reckless endangerment of the aircraft, or $1,000 - $10,000 for the lesser recommendation.

Not sure of the rationale behind people defending these clowns. They could have killed people in the helicopter and on the ground. It's like pushing a bookcase down a flight of stairs "just to see what happens". I'd say 5 years is pretty short for attempted manslaughter.

I'd agree that it seems excessive. Being a geek I can kinda see myself doing this without thinking about it, especially back when I was a teenager. I'd hardly think my cheap laser would have much of a chance of blinding a pilot in any meaningful way at that distance.

But on the other hand, the fact is it can blind the pilot and therefor endanger his and the lives of everyone else who happens to be on the helicopter, along with anyone on the ground who might get injured or killed if the helicopter happened to crash over that dense suburban area. Not to mention flat out interfering with whatever duties the helicopter was involved in at the time.

I can see how this is a really serious crime. Maybe more effort should be put into making the public aware of just how serious this kind of behaviour is?

I don't want to defend the guy, but are there any recorded incidents of a laser actually causing a serious incident with an aircraft? I can see where it would be annoying and distracting, but I think it is unlikely that the pilot(s) would be completely unable to keep the aircraft in the sky when hit with a laser pointer of normal power.

If the pilot felt his aircraft (or himself!) were in imminent danger, I expect he would have flown the aircraft away from the threat; from the video it appears like he made efforts to say in the area despite the risk of being lasered again.

I'd agree that it seems excessive. Being a geek I can kinda see myself doing this without thinking about it, especially back when I was a teenager. I'd hardly think my cheap laser would have much of a chance of blinding a pilot in any meaningful way at that distance.

It isn't excessive when you consider that you are causing the pilot of a helicopter in the air to lose control of said helicopter and they could crash into a populated area. How are lives and a helicopter worth?

Granted, it's a major nuisance and a *potentially* deadly safety hazard, and should not be treated lightly. But they should amend the law a bit to allow for these sorts of "doofusy" actions that don't result in any personal or property damage.

A mandatory 1 year in the federal pen is probably enough to make an example out of the guy and spread the news (gradually) to millions of other doofuses that lasering aircraft is a Bad Idea™.

No, it didn't but so what? I am not sure why an "example" needs to be made to communicate that lasering aircraft is a bad idea. Doofuses I am sure have shined the damn thing in their own eyes, and should have a very clear idea what it could do to a helicopter or other aircraft. They are not innocent, they are stupid and malicious.

I'm a pilot. I've never had this happen to me, but I know those who have, and it's a big deal. Not only can pilots lose control of aircraft because of this kind of thing (and it's even worse for helicopter pilots), but 1W+ lasers can permanently damage vision even from thousands of feet away.

Here's how freedom works: we let you buy things like hobbyist high-power lasers, and if you abuse the privilege, there are consequences. Jerks like this guy put lives at risk and also empower politicians and bureaucrats to regulate every product that has some conceivably dangerous use. Of course, our prosecutors are too busy trying to send someone to jail for thirty five years for downloading academic articles instead of people who deliberately put lives at risk.

Perhaps, but he faces "up to" that, it's not a mandatory minimum. For all we know, he'll plea bargain and get a years probation. Regardless of whether it caused harm, there is real potential for terrible consequences, so I do believe it is quite necessary to be able to penalize to that degree.

Do those mega bright LED flashlights that claim kilometers of coverage also fall under this law?

Uh, no. The coherent light produced by a laser is a very different animal from that of simply "powerful" flashlights. Searchlights consume tens of thousands of watts worth of power but are hardly blinding from thousands of feet away. A laser with even just one watt of power can set things on fire.

Not sure of the rationale behind people defending these clowns. They could have killed people in the helicopter and on the ground. It's like pushing a bookcase down a flight of stairs "just to see what happens". I'd say 5 years is pretty short for attempted manslaughter.

I'm not a US citizen, so I don't really care.

But, what exactly is the *point* of putting that man in prison for 5 years?

Do you think if it was just 6 month and $50000 dollars he'd say "Oh, well, that's not so bad. I can do this again"?

Instead, if he really gets 5 years what he will learn is that the state is his enemy. And if those $250000 drives him into bankruptcy, he might become a criminal while trying to quickly earn some money for living.

But, for some reason, people in the US seem to love putting others behind bars. Weird.

I am a pilot. Someone shined a laser at me once, at night. I didn't know what it was at first, I just saw a flashing green dot in the distance. I actually thought it was a rotating beacon for an airport at first, which confused me, because I didn't expect any airport there (rotating beacons identify airports and flash green/white). The uncertainty about my position was dangerous enough. As I stared at it, expecting it to flash white, suddenly it got very bright (I assume because the guy got it aimed properly). I realized what it was and looked away - but not before I got a very persistent afterimage right in my center of vision, because I was looking right at it.

For the next few minutes, until the afterimage cleared, it was impossible to read any of the cockpit instruments directly. I had to look slightly offset so the readout was not in the afterimage. I was very disturbed because I was concerned my vision was permanently damaged. People can buy 1,500 mW lasers now for $299 (5 mW is the damage threshold at close range). Because of the afterimage and my concern, the next few minutes were very dangerous and stressful, even though it was just a casual flight in good weather. Luckily, I had a checkup and there was no permanent damage. They never found the guy, just like they never find most of the morons who do shit like this.

I was flying a small single-engine plane in good weather with just me in it in a relatively unpopulated area. These travel slow and are not that difficult to fly, and it was not critical that I be able to read any of the instruments precisely or frequently. I was able to just fly straight and level and wait for the afterimage to clear up. If this had been an airliner on approach into a large airport over a city, it would have been a major problem. If the airliner had an inoperative autopilot, this could have been the critical link that caused a massive fatal crash, by rendering both pilots temporarily incapable of hand-flying it. Re: this story, a helicopter at night is not an easy thing to fly. If the pilot had any other issues that they had to give their attention to (e.g. mechanical issues), the additional distraction of the laser could be the difference between a safe landing and a fatal crash.

This stuff is no joke. I could not give a rat's ass whether this guy "intended" any harm or not. "I'm too stupid to realize I was doing something dangerous and reckless" is not a defense. Throw the fucking book at this asshole and see how the guys in prison like his blue underpants for the next 5 years.

I am getting enraged just typing this. There is not much margin for error in aviation, at certain times anyway. This is not at all like someone driving with high beams on. When driving, you can always slam on the brakes and stop on the side of the road if you have a problem. You can't do that in an airplane. The fact that no harm was done in this case doesn't in any way lessen the severity of what the guy did. He was just lucky no one got hurt or died because of his recklessness. Why does that mean we should punish him any less severely?

But IMO it's up to a jury to decide whether or not that was his intent.

So what, do you think he's not going to in front of a jury on this? All the people saying "This sentence is much too excessive!" are ignoring the fact that this is the maximum penalty. In no way does it imply that this guy is absolutely going to get that penalty or anywhere near to it. As stated above, he'll likely get a fine and probation.

For the love of God, people. Please figure out what the term "maximum sentence" means. It really shouldn't be hard to understand that the maximum sentence represents the maximum possible time in jail and money fined. It does NOT mean that's the standard sentence that the average person convicted of this crime will receive this sentence. In fact, it's exceptionally rare for people to receive the maximum sentence, and is almost always because there was some extenuating circumstance that caused the judge/jury to decide to max out the sentence.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting so weary of seeing stories like this on Ars, where the article mentions the max possible sentence, and the comments are filled with people screaming about how unreasonable that is, with absolutely no concept that the maximum sentence is MEANT to be high, and also meant to be very infrequently used.

Can't the pilot just shade his eyes with his hand? As I might do driving into the early morning sun?

In the case of a helicopter no. Both hands are generally required to pilot a helicopter (one on the cyclic and the other on the collective). The same is also generally true for a fixed wing aircraft landing (one on the yolk or stick and tho other on the throttles).

This stuff is no joke. I could not give a rat's ass whether this guy "intended" any harm or not. "I'm too stupid to realize I was doing something dangerous and reckless" is not a defense. Throw the fucking book at this asshole and see how the guys in prison like his blue underpants for the next 5 years.

The fact that no harm was done in this case doesn't in any way lessen the severity of what the guy did. He was just lucky no one got hurt. Why does that mean we should punish him any less severely?

Wait, so if we throw the book at a guy who didn't intend to do any harm for being dumb when nobody gets hurt, what do we do with the people who actually intend to hurt people?

This reminds me of the Sting song (covered by Johnny Cash) "I Hung My Head." Bored, with time to kill, idly sighting a rifle, didn't realize it would go off, didn't think about the consequences until afterward, etc etc etc.

I realize he didn't act with malice but that's an incredibly dangerous thing he just did. It very, very easily could have caused multiple fatalities.

Part of the reason for the heavy penalties for this kind of offence is to act as a deterrent, and is a sign of what a big deal it is. The claim that "they didn't intend to harm anyone" isn't a defence here, just as it isn't a defence in manslaughter, and it is a fundamental principle of law that ignorance of the law is no defence either. I'm astonished that the US doesn't have tighter restrictions on these kinds of devices as they have the potential to be extremely dangerous, and IMHO they should throw the book at this guy, if only to make other people aware of how serious it is. I also think that the government should require that these devices are sold with warnings about the potential legal ramifications of misusing them

There are two huge pieces of misinformation that seem to be creeping into this thread:

First, lasers are nothing like regular "bright" lights. The headlight analogy is completely incorrect relative to the potential temporary and permanent vision loss that lasers can cause. I'm not looking to create a tutorial on lasers here, but instantaneous specular reflections of lasers at the 500mW level (that's half a Watt) can damage vision. This guy was pointing it at people.

Second, there is no way that anyone who has purchased a laser powerful enough for a prank like this is unaware that they're dangerous. Take a look at the warnings on this product page of a high power laser. Note that these warnings also need to be affixed to the housing of the product itself. So, unless the vendor were breaking the law too, there's no way this guy had "no idea" that what he was doing was dangerous and a felony.

When a product ships with safety glasses that's typically an indicator that it just might be dangerous.